Engaging Theism and Creationism »
Posted by: RickyDawkins 2 months, 1 week ago280 Comments Report this Story
A scientific world-view entails atheism and thus contradicts Creationism. I am relatively sanguine when it comes to scientists who believe in God, as opposed to the much greater alarm I exhibit toward scientists who espouse Creationism. I believe that the battle against Creationism will be won, just as the battle against Geocentrism was won.
Read Full Story at scienceblogs.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 280
-
0%
RickyDawkins2 months, 1 week ago
When it comes to Creationism from where I stand there's nothing to talk about; the facts of the universe manifestly falsify Creationism. Creationism is a clear & distinct idea. I know what I'm rejecting, and I know what the Creationists believe. Aside from the Amish and a few other groups the vast majority of Creationists are embedded in a world whose technological apparatus is contingent upon a network of facts which taken together naturally lead to the inference that Creationism is false. When I was younger I did expend time trying to explain to my Creationist friends why their model of the world is problematic. The persistence of Creationism in the United States, and to a lesser extent other regions of the developed world, is a functional of historical and sociological processes. For a variety of reasons a subculture has emerged in the United States which rejects the authority of the scientific elite.
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/06/engaging_t...
Reply-
0%
SonOfTheMask2 months, 1 week ago
I would prefer the author use the term "Strict Creationism" rather than "Creationism".
Reply -
0%
LARK2 months, 1 week ago
I was listening to my own heartbeat, and my pulsebeat, thop thop thop ... and I wondered who or what was it that caused it, certainly not this person that I know of that is doing the typing now. Certainly you have got theories and explanations starting from the embryo, the workings of a human body, more generally life forms and evolution etc. But why is there that life force that makes life forms different from organic compounds? I am not debating; in another thread I am asking a believer questions. Truly want to know.
Reply-
0%
antibrainwasher2 months, 1 week ago
you have two types of nerveous system nerves, one is automatic for heartbeat, the other is volutary, such as deciding to move your finger.
You heart beat is of course controlled by the first, as is the heart beat of all animal life on the planet from whence you have evolved. There is no "life force", that is a term from star wars and religion "soul" which for hundreds of thousands of years that humans have existed there has been no evidence for. None. Zip. Nada.
The DNA of an earthworm is about 80% identical to yours. The heart beat of an dog, chimpanzee or eagle is no different than yours, controlled by a involuentary nervous system.
Keep asking rational questions, you'll eventually arrive at a logical conclusion based on evidence and rationality. Rationality and evidence based thought are what seperates us from apes. Emotional and faith based ignorance are what apes and humans have in common.
Reply
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
Truzseeker2 months, 1 week ago
The religious really have a problem with John 5:39 "You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you'll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! "
That has nothing in common with faith. Ask anyone who is so involved with the bible what this means, and see what kind of reaction you get from it...has fun
Reply-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
-
-
0%
Endoscopy2 months, 1 week ago
In this discussion there are two ways to look at the facts.
1. There is no God therefore there has to be some explanation for the evidence we see.
2. There is a God and we can see His hand when we look at the facts.
Atheists make the facts fit their presupposition.
Believers in a God see the facts as fitting in with what God has done.
Both side say that the other has the blinders on. The problem is that the Atheists start with the belief that there is no God and reject anything that suggests that. Believers are open to both sides. There are believers that believe that Evolution is a tool that God used. Others reject that because the fossil record does not support that. Believers fall into various camps when discussing this subject. Anywhere from new earth (6000 years) to old earth. The main point that believers have is that the impossible problems to solve have an answer. For more information there is a web site run by Ken Ham who delights in debating evolutionists.
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy2 months, 1 week ago
The web site is:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
A starting place that discusses the different points of view is:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1...
Atheistic Evolutionists have several major problems that really have no answers. They talk around them and have come up with science fiction answers for some.
Darwin said the fossil record would support his idea but it doesn't.
In places the "younger" layers are below the "older" layers.
In some places petrified trees go through several layers.
How did matter come into being?
How did life start?
These and others create major problems for evolutionists.
Basically facts are neutral. It is how a person looks at the facts and then gives an interpretation to them. Is a God forced out of the explanation or not.
An evolutionist looks at all the patterns and says that that is proof of evolution.
A creationist looks at all the patterns and sees the design that God brought to it.
Reply-
0%
Coatl2 months, 1 week ago
"Darwin said the fossil record would support his idea"
He was right.
"In places the "younger" layers are below the "older" layers."
That only happens when a cave's ceiling colapses.
"In some places petrified trees go through several layers."
Such as?
"How did matter come into being?"
I'm sure most evolutionists don't know nor care, particle physicists on the other hand would tell you that it probably have allways existed.
"How did life start?"
It's still an unknown. But there are many hypotesis for abiogenesis.
"These and others create major problems for evolutionists."
Actually none of these are problems for evolutionists.
"Is a God forced out of the explanation or not."
In scientific research any supernatural explanation should always be discarted, because it won't be testable.
Reply -
0%
RickyDawkins2 months, 1 week ago
One type of evidence for evolution (evidence that organisms are related, descended from a few common ancestors, and change to adapt to their environments) is that organisms are similar to each other, but not exactly the same. Similar organisms have differences that help them adapt to their environments.
Many organisms have similar body plans. Horses', donkeys', and zebras' bodies are set up in pretty much the same way, because they are descended from a common ancestor. As organisms adapt and evolve, not everything about them changes. The differences, such as the zebra's stripes, show that each species adapted to its own environment after branching off from the common ancestor.
Similarities are often easy to see when one looks at two organisms that evolved from a common ancestor. Now scientists can also analyze DNA to discover how closely organisms are related.
http://necsi.org/projects/evolution/evidence/li...
Reply -
0%
toph19732 months, 1 week ago
How can you even use this website as a reference. There is absolutely no scientific evidence in anything on there. There is only the bible to back things up. When we bring the bible into play we have proof that is is historically, unfactual. To use the bible as evidence is completely uncredible.
There are answers for all the questions that you pose. Do we know them all yet, no. But with science uncovering things nearly daily how long will it be before the bible is proven completely untrue? Why don't we still worship zeus, et al.? Because it was proved these were false gods. Which is what science will prove with our current god.
Reply
-
-
